The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Rich Subsidies Powering Solar and Wind Projects,” shows the benefits of some of the Obama-era incentives included in the initial stimulus program.

Long derided as a political slush fund, this program has provided amazing benefits to approximately 15 major solar and wind projects, creating construction jobs and an industry poised to return major benefits to its investors.

While a “gold-rush mentality” may have ensued, the article correctly notes that many other industries received subsidies in their infancy and even to this day, including automobile, aviation, and oil and gas companies.

The project by NRG Energy seems particularly impressive — it is building nearly a million solar panels in the desert to supply electricity for up to 100,000 homes. In addition to federal subsidies, it is also benefiting from a 25-year utility contract to purchase the energy from Pacific Gas & Electric at a megawatt-hour rate nearly double that of conventional energy. This, too, represents a built-in benefit to the industry that should be commended not condemned.

This article, despite its taxpayer-heavy rhetoric, encourages me about the state of clean energy in our country and gives me hope that we may indeed benefit from American ingenuity and resourcefulness in this area.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Across Europe, Irking Drivers is Urban Policy,” illustrates how much more the environmental mindset has taken control there compared to the United States. Europe is making real progress in reducing its carbon dioxide footprint, often by adopting policies in clear contradiction to the U.S.

In Europe, they try to make owning a car an unpleasant experience to encourage pedestrian traffic and use of the public transportation system. While new buildings in the U.S. must meet a certain minimum number of parking spaces to comply with zoning law, in Europe they cap the parking spaces. In Europe, extra red lights are placed in cities, and the green period is reduced to ensure pedestrians do not have to wait more than 20 seconds to cross the street. Certain areas are entirely closed off to traffic; other streets are limited to low emission vehicles. Trams often have the power to turn green lights for cars into their favor.

Of course, some would say that with gasoline at $8 per gallon and a far better public transportation system, the Europeans can afford to do this. The truth, however, is that Europeans are meeting the Kyoto environmental treaty that we never signed. Instead, we try to sychronize green lights to improve traffic flow and cry out against congestion fees. As an environmentalist, I find it discouraging to see how far we have to go compared to our European allies.

Today’s lead story in The New York Times is titled, “U.S. Weighs Curbs for Speculators in Energy Trades.” It describes new attempts by federal regulators to control traders in markets for oil, gas and other energy commodities. These new rules are being implemented by the executive branch using President Obama’s existing powers, and they will include limits on volume of trading as well as increased disclosure requirements.

Apparently, speculative activity has been responsible for wild swings in the price of a barrel of oil, with a direct result on the prices that consumers pay at the gas pump. Oil prices rose to a record high of $145 a barrel last summer, then sank to $33 a barrel in December. The current level is about $60.

In my opinion, it’s refreshing to see President Obama reverse some of the trends of the Bush administration and its laissez-faire attitude toward the business world. Tougher requirements for banks, hedge funds and credit card companies have all been instituted under his watch. At last, the exploitations of the rich and powerful are being reined in by increased oversight and anti-trust regulations.

The problem is not interference with markets or even capitalism, as some would suggest. It’s stopping attempts at economic manipulation for the benefit of a very few corrupt players and insiders. And that’s good reason for average Americans to celebrate.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Opposes Trade Sanctions in Climate Bill.” It describes the recent legislation approved by the House, the chances of similar action by the Senate, and the opposition of President Obama regarding one provision of the proposed bill.

The item in question was crucial to the success of the legislation as it was added to secure approval from members of the House with a large manufacturing base in their district. It was designed to ensure that U.S. industries were not placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to other countries without similar energy efforts.

In my opinion, President Obama is correct in his opposition because economic tariffs represent an inefficiency and impediment to global trade. For anyone who has taken Economics 101 in college, it is easy to graph the negative impact of tariffs for all parties involved, compared to relying on free market forces. 

As to the Republican opposition, well, let me quote the article directly:

“… But he [President Obama] expressed scorn for the Republicans who fought the bill in the House. He noted that some of them had predicted political doom for those who voted for it, recalling the 1993 battle over an energy tax that failed and helped Republicans gain control of the House a year later.

“Those Republicans ‘are 16 years behind the times,’ he said, comparing their position to that of Republican leaders in the energy and  health care debates of the early Clinton years.

“‘They’re fighting not even the last war,’ he said. ‘They’re fighting three wars ago.’”